Looking Toward the Future: Critical Attributes of Identification

The identification of gifted and talented students is interconnected with the conception of giftedness and program services. Exploring these relationships from the past is important in examining the future of identification and its critical attributes.

Identification Practices Before the Texas State Plan

My introduction to gifted education occurred in 1977. As a doctoral student at the University of Texas, I was teaching a course for teachers related to adapting for individual differences in general education classrooms. The coordinator of gifted programs for Austin Independent School District, Terry Masters Cortés-Vega, asked me to teach a course about gifted education that focused on the same strategies I was using in my course on adapting. I was hesitant at first, telling her that my background was in special education, not gifted education. But after her offer to coteach and provide information related to teaching gifted students, I accepted. At that time, I believed that gifted students were simply those who performed at the upper end of the bell-shaped curve, primarily on an intelligence test, and that their services related essentially to acceleration—going faster through the curriculum. Terry introduced me to gifted education and to the 1972 Marland definition (Marland, 1972). What a surprise! I had no idea about the variation in characteristics and multiple areas of giftedness—high intellectual ability, specific academic aptitude, creative or productive thinking, leadership ability, visual and performing arts, and psychomotor ability. In addition to acceleration, I discovered gifted students needed differentiated programs and services beyond those normally provided in general education.

The late 1970s were a period of growth in gifted education—the first Office of Gifted and Talented Education was established at the federal level, federal funding increased, the National/State Leadership Training Institute built state networks and leadership, and the Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented held its first conference. In 1979–1980 approximately $2,000,000 was available to local district programs in Texas on a competitive basis for the first time. Because Austin ISD was fortunate to receive an award for $100,000, Terry and I worked together in developing a method for disseminating the money within the school district. Individual schools were able to apply for small grants to provide services for students with gifts and talents in specific areas of interest. Administrators and teachers made the decisions related to the service area (e.g., visual arts, English) and the identification process. We provided information and support as needed.

My early experience with gifted education paralleled practices occurring at the state level. Identification and services varied from district to district and from school to school within the same district. Conceptions of giftedness ranged from unitary viewpoints of intellectual aptitude (i.e., Spearman’s [1923] general intellectual ability or g) to Guilford’s Structure of the Intellect (i.e., 180 intellectual abilities; Guilford, 1967) to Renzulli’s Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness (i.e., creativity, above-average ability, task commitment; Renzulli, 1978). In reviewing issues of TEMPO from the 1980s (see https://www.txgifted.org/tempo-archive), I discovered a variety of program descriptions, services, and learning activities. Few programs appeared to serve students before second grade. Some school districts identified students for programs in the general intellectual ability and creativity areas at the elementary level, and then reassessed students and provided programs in specific subject areas at the middle and high school levels. Other school districts’ gifted services included packaged programs and competitions (e.g., Junior Great Books, Talents Unlimited, Future Problem Solving, Olympics of the Mind) and/or focused on independent projects, higher level thinking, critical and creative thinking, and differentiation of content, process, and product. Services were often delivered sporadically through pull-out or afterschool programs—some confined to Fabulous Fridays, others twice a week, or others on a daily basis using an enrichment teacher. Some schools did offer honors classes or special magnet school programs.

Few issues of TEMPO mentioned the identification process. It was unclear if the process related to a conception of giftedness, the students’ characteristics, or program services. School districts tended to use an identification matrix in which scores from assessments were given a point value and then added together to produce a single score. The single score was then used to determine if a student would be placed in the gifted program. Cut scores varied, with some schools considering the top 5% each year and others the top 15%–25% using Renzulli’s Revolving Door Identification Model (Renzulli, 1981; Renzulli, Reis, & Smith, 1981).

In summary, prior to the Texas State Plan for the Education of Gifted/Talented Students, school districts’ identification practices were as varied as their program services. A psychometric approach appeared to be most prevalent during this period of time (i.e., students were identified if they met a specific cut-off score). More importantly, it’s unclear if the schools’ identification practices were aligned with the program services or a specific conception of giftedness. Were individual students’ strengths and needs considered? Or were students served holistically (i.e., all of the identified students received the same services)?

Identification Practices Outlined in the Texas State Plan

These variations were reduced with the adoption of the Texas Education Agency’s recommendations to mandate K–12 gifted and talented programs in 1987 and the approval of the Texas State Plan for the Education of Gifted/Talented Students in 1990. The plan described acceptable practices (eventually described as “accountability”) in student assessment, such as grade levels served, types of measures, the process, and involvement of educators and families (see Table 1). Since that time, the plan has been revised four times, in 1996, 2000, 2009, and 2019. Although these plans identify important attributes of the identification process, they give the school districts great latitude in the specifics. In addition to the unanswered questions in Table 1 and even in the most recently updated plan, specification for how the assessments align to the district’s conception of giftedness or the areas of giftedness served and the process itself (i.e., referral, screening, placement) is not provided.

Because of this ambiguity, specific identification practices in Texas are left to the discretion of school districts. These practices are influenced by the school’s conceptions of giftedness, service options, previous experience with gifted education, and the knowledge, skills, and priorities of administers and teachers who coordinate the program. For example, in determining placement in gifted education programs, some school districts may adhere to a strict cut-off score, others use varied scores based on campus norms, and others use an individual case study approach. How does research address these unanswered questions? According to research, what are the critical attributes of identification?

Research Support for Specific Identification Attributes

Researchers view giftedness as complex, multifaceted, and influenced by the environment and other factors (Gagné, 1995, 1999; Renzulli, 1978; Subotnik et al., 2011; Tannenbaum, 1983). For this reason, national definitions and programming standards focus on a conception of giftedness that is dynamic and constantly developing (see NAGC, 2019a, 2019b). For example, in the National Association for Gifted Children’s (NAGC, 2019a) new definition, gifted students are viewed as performing or having the capability of performing at higher levels as compared to others of the same age, experience, and environment in one or more domains. These students come from all racial, ethnic, and cultural populations, as well as all economic strata; require sufficient access to appropriate learning opportunities to realize their potential; can have learning and processing disorders; need support and guidance to develop socially and emotionally as well as in their area of talent; and require varied services based on their changing needs (see pp. 1–2).

To address this multifaceted, dynamic conception of giftedness and include more students from underrepresented groups, researchers have identified these critical attributes for effective identification:

1. Inclusive definitions (Passow & Frasier, 1996; Pfeiffer, 2002; Ryser, 2018a). Definitions that incorporate all domains and the ways that gifts and talents might be manifested are more likely to include students from underrepresented groups. More inclusion results in identifying students who might have limited academic experiences in their backgrounds but who have high potential.
2. Quality assessments (Johnsen, 2018; Robins & Jolly, 2018; Ryser, 2018b). Educators need to select assessments that relate to the purpose (i.e., identify gifted students), have validity and reliability information, and minimize bias. Educators need to examine the technical manual to look for representative norms, reliability and validity studies, and studies that compare differences between groups.
3. Alignment of assessments with student characteristics and the domain of talent (Louis et al., 2000; Warne, 2012; Worrell & Erwin, 2011). Assessments will be different for students who have a talent in mathematics versus those with talents in the arts. Alternative assessments may need to be used for students from diverse groups, including nonverbal assessments for English language learners and modified assessments for students with special education needs. Assessments with naturally high ceilings need to be used to examine above-level knowledge and skills.
4. Dynamic and alternative assessments (Gentry et al., 2008; Lidz & Macrine, 2001; Lo & Porath, 2017; VanTassel-Baska et al., 2002, 2007). These assessments include test-teach-test activities (dynamic assessments), performance, and products. Giftedness is dynamic, and assessments that show growth over time are able to examine students’ rapid acquisition of concepts. This growth is important in examining students from lower income backgrounds’ potential to learn new concepts. Using these assessments, the focus is on strengths and learning needs that exceed a uniform, age-related curriculum.
5. Multiple sources and criteria (Acar et al., 2016; Johnsen & Ryser, 1994; McCoach et al., 2001; Pfeiffer, 2003; Plucker & Callahan, 2014; Ryser, 2018b; Siegle et al., 2016; Tai et al., 2006; Wai et al., 2010). Because of the diversity within the gifted population, using a variety of assessments is important in identifying students. Doing so provides a broader view of students’ gifts and talents, and yields valuable information that is helpful in planning program services. The assessments need to be carefully selected so that different perspectives, as well as different formats (i.e., qualitative and quantitative), are offered. For example, intelligence testing is good at predicting academic performance, products and performances are good at identifying potential, and teacher/family rating scales are best for identifying psychosocial aspects.
6. Professional development (Briggs et al., 2008; Hunsaker et al., 1997; Speirs Neumeister et al., 2007; Masten & Plata, 2000). All involved in the identification process should have knowledge and skills in conceptions and characteristics of gifted learners, gifted education, the identification process, and multicultural awareness. Without training, teachers are more likely to nominate students who reflect previously held conceptions of giftedness, such as that gifted students should be academically able, have verbal abilities, and be well-mannered.
7. Involvement of families (Coleman & Cross, 2005; Gentry et al., 2008; Reyes et al., 1996; Scott et al., 1992). Families need to be aware of the range of characteristics of students, the importance of gifted education, the identification process, how to nurture their child’s gifts and talents at home, and how to find quality afterschool enrichment opportunities. Information needs to be communicated in a style and language that is understood. This information is particularly important for parents from lower income backgrounds who may not understand gifted programs, be reticent to refer their children, or disapprove of behaviors associated with giftedness.
8. Early identification (Borland et al., 2000; Cornell et al., 1995; Gagné, 1995; Subotnik et al., 2011). Adverse effects may occur for some students who are not involved in appropriate education opportunities early. Early access is particularly important for students from low-socioeconomic groups who may not have had access to learning activities that develop their gifts into talents.
9. Access to classrooms with qualified teachers (Ford et al., 2005; Hertzog, 2005; Siegle et al., 2016; Worrell & Erwin, 2011). To cultivate their potential, students need to have opportunities for differentiation. They need teachers who understand the characteristics of gifted students, implement culturally responsive pedagogical strategies, and know how to scaffold instruction in talent development areas.
10. Universal screening (Card & Giuliano, 2015; Johnsen, 2018; McBee et al., 2016). This practice involves administering the same assessments to all students (or to those in the top 50%) and increases the number of students from lower income backgrounds and ethnic/racial minority groups identified as gifted. A two-phase identification system such as referral and then screening frequently misses students from lower income and/or ethnic/racial minority backgrounds. If more phases are used, it is important to include multiple assessments at each phase to incorporate the diverse array of talents.
11. Local norms (Peters & Engerrand, 2016; Peters & Gentry, 2012). With this approach, students’ performance is compared with others of similar age and background at the campus or district level, rather than using national norms. This attribute is important to provide access to talent development activities for students who might not have had previous learning opportunities.
12. Range of scores rather than cut-off scores (Johnsen, 2018; McBee & Makel, 2019). Given the standard error of measurement, a range of scores should be used. There is no minimum (or maximum) percentage of a school population within a campus or district that should be identified because the number of students who are identified as gifted depends on the domain, the demographics within a campus or district, and the decision-making process (i.e., using “and” or an “or” rule related to assessments).
13. Balanced review (Johnsen, 2018). To interpret assessment results, the committee needs to review all of the assessment information equally, include subtest as well as composite scores, and understand basic psychometrics, the meaning of different types of scores, the standard error of measurement, and the limitations of assessment. Psychometric results need to be considered within a context of educational opportunities and growth over time.

Conclusions

The Texas State Plan provides guidance about critical attributes related to identification; however, many specifics are left to the discretion of school districts. For example, the plan doesn’t address specific questions or elaborate on how assessments should align to the district’s conception of giftedness or the areas of giftedness served. Most of these unanswered questions can be addressed by examining the research literature. However, each district must determine its conception of giftedness (i.e., what students should be identified?) and how this conception relates to programming (i.e., how might the program meet students’ strengths and needs?), which ultimately affects the identification practices. For example, if the conception of giftedness is dynamic (e.g., students’ gifts develop over time), then identification assessments would examine not only current performance (i.e., achievement and aptitude tests), but also the potential for growth (i.e., dynamic assessments and talent development programs) within a particular service domain (e.g., mathematics, English/language arts, performing arts).

Thinking back to my early experiences with gifted education, the Marland definition provided the foundation for the conception of giftedness. Programs were planned at the campus level based on students’ interests and teachers’ expertise. The programs represented the local campus’s population, so they were quite diverse. There were no psychometrically driven conceptions (e.g., gifted students must have a particular intelligence test score), and assessments were aligned to services. Although this early approach to gifted education was more tailored to each student, it was certainly not comprehensive or cohesive. It didn’t identify students early or develop their abilities throughout their educational experience. We were still learning about gifted student’s diversity of characteristics and how to identify and serve them. My hope for the future is not to return to the past but to look to a future in which the conception of giftedness considers diversity, all educators are prepared in gifted education, identification practices are based on dynamic models of giftedness, and students have access and learning opportunities for fully developing their gifts or talents.

References

Acar, S., Sen, S., & Cayirdag, N. (2016). Consistency of the performance and nonperformance methods in gifted identification: A multilevel meta-analytic review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(2), 81–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216634438

Borland, J. H., Schnur, R., & Wright, L. (2000). Economically disadvantaged students in a school for the academically gifted: A postpositivist inquiry into individual and family adjustment. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(1), 13–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620004400103

Briggs, C. J., Reis, S. M., & Sullivan, E. E. (2008). A national view of promising programs and practices for culturally, linguistically, and ethnically diverse gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(2), 131–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208316037

Card, D., & Giuliano, L. (2015). Can universal screening increase the representation of low income and minority students in gifted education? (No. 21519). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w21519

Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2005). Being gifted in school: An introduction to development, guidance, and teaching (2nd ed.). Prufrock Press.

Cornell, D. G., Delcourt, M. A. B., Goldberg, M. D., & Bland, L. C. (1995). Achievement and self-concept of minority students in elementary school gifted programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18(2), 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329501800206

Ford, D. Y., Moore, J. L., III, & Milner, H. R. (2005). Beyond colorblindness: A model of culture with implications for gifted education. Roeper Review, 27(2), 97–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190509554297

Gagné, F. (1995). From giftedness to talent: A developmental model and its impact on the language of the field. Roeper Review, 18(2), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199509553709

Gagné, F. (1999). Gagné’s differentiated model of giftedness and talent (DMGT). Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22(2), 230–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329902200209

Gentry, M., Hu, S., & Thomas, A. T. (2008). Ethnically diverse students. In J. A. Plucker & C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (pp. 195–212). Prufrock Press.

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. McGraw Hill.

Hertzog, N. B. (2005). Equity and access: Creating general education classrooms responsive to potential giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29(2), 213–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320502900205

Hunsaker, S. L., Finley, V. S., & Frank, E. L. (1997). An analysis of teacher nominations and student performance in gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41(2), 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629704100203

Johnsen, S. K. (Ed.). (2018). Identifying gifted students: A practical guide (3rd ed.). Prufrock Press.

Johnsen, S. K., & Ryser, G. (1994). Identification of young gifted children from lower income families. Gifted and Talented International, 9(2), 62–68.

Lidz, C. S., & Macrine, S. L. (2001). An alternative approach to the identification of gifted culturally and linguistically diverse learners: The contribution of dynamic assessment. School Psychology International, 22(1), 74–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/01430343010221006

Lo, C. O., & Porath, M. (2017). Paradigm shifts in gifted education: An examination vis-à-vis its historical situatedness and pedagogical sensibilities. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(4), 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217722840

Louis, B., Subotnik, R. F., Breland, P. S., & Lewis, M. (2000). Establishing criteria for high ability versus selective admission to gifted programs: Implications for policy and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 12(3), 295–314. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23363536

Marland, S. P. Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented (Vol. 1). Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Office of Education (Department of Health, Education, and Welfare). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED056243

Masten, W. G., & Plata, M. (2000). Acculturation and teacher ratings of Hispanic and Anglo-American students. Roeper Review, 23(1), 45–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190009554061

McBee, M. T., & Makel, M. C. (2019). The quantitative implications of definitions of giftedness. AERA Open, 5(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419831007

McBee, M. T., Peters, S. J., & Miller, E. M. (2016). The impact of the nomination phase on gifted program identification: A comprehensive psychometric analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(4), 258–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216656256

McCoach, D. B., Kehle, T. J., Bray, M. A., & Siegle, D. (2001). Best practices in the identification of gifted students with learning disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 38(5), 403–411. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.1029

National Association for Gifted Children. (2019a). A definition that guides best practice [Position statement]. https://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/Position%20Statement/Definition%20of%20Giftedness%20%282019%29.pdf

National Association for Gifted Children. (2019b). 2019 Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards. http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/standards/Intro%202019%20Programming%20Standards.pdf

Passow, A. H., & Frasier, M. M. (1996). Toward improving identification of talent potential among minority and disadvantaged students. Roeper Review, 18(3), 198–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199609553734

Peters, S. J., & Engerrand, K. G. (2016). Equity and excellence: Proactive efforts in the identification of underrepresented students for gifted and talented services. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(3), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216643165

Peters, S. J., & Gentry, M. (2012). Group-specific norms and teacher rating scales: Implications for underrepresentation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23(2), 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X12438717

Pfeiffer, S. I. (2002). Identifying gifted and talented students: Recurring issues and promising solutions. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1300/J008v19n01_03

Pfeiffer, S. I. (2003). Challenges and opportunities for student who are gifted: What the experts say. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620304700207

Plucker, J. A., & Callahan, C. M. (2014). Research on giftedness and gifted education: Status of the field and considerations for the future. Exceptional Children, 80(4), 390–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914527244

Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60(3), 180–184, 261. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171109200821

Renzulli, J. S. (1981). Identifying and programming the gifted student. Education Digest, 46(7), 45-47.

Renzulli, J. S., Reis, S. M., & Smith, L. H. (1981). The revolving door model: A new way of identifying the gifted. Phi Delta Kappan, 62, 648-649 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234596861

Reyes, E. I., Fletcher, R., & Paez, D. (1996). Developing local multidimensional screening procedures for identifying giftedness among Mexican American border population. Roeper Review, 18(3), 208–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199609553739

Robins, J. H., & Jolly, J. L., (2018). Technical information regarding assessment. In S. K. Johnsen (Ed.), Identifying gifted students: A practical guide (3rd ed., pp. 73–116). Prufrock Press.

Ryser, G. R. (2018a). Fairness in testing and nonbiased assessment. In S. K. Johnsen (Ed.), Identifying gifted students: A practical guide (3rd. ed., pp. 59–72). Prufrock Press.

Ryser, G. R. (2018b). Qualitative and quantitative approaches to assessment. In S. K. Johnsen (Ed.), Identifying gifted students: A practical guide (3rd ed., pp. 33–58). Prufrock Press.

Scott, M. S., Perou, R., Urbano, R., Hogan, A., & Gold, S. (1992). The identification of giftedness: A comparison of White, Hispanic and Black families. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(3), 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629203600303

Siegle, D., Gubbins, E. J., O’Rourke, P., Langley, S. D., Mun, R. U., Luria, S. R., Little, C. A., McCoach, D. B., Knupp, T., Callahan, C. M., & Plucker, J. A. (2016). Barriers to underserved students’ participation in gifted programs and possible solutions. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39(2), 103–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353216640930

Spearman, C. E. (1923). The nature of intelligence and the principles of cognition. London, England: MacMillan.

Speirs Neumeister, K. L., Adams, C. M., Pierce, R. L., Cassady, J. C., & Dixon, F. A. (2007). Fourth-grade teachers’ perceptions of giftedness: Implications for identifying and serving diverse gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(4), 479–499. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2007-503

Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056

Tai, R. H., Liu, C. Q., Maltese, A. V., & Fan, X. (2006). Planning for early careers in science. Science, 312(5777), 1143–1144. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1128690

Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. Macmillan.

VanTassel-Baska, J., Feng, A. X., & Evans, B. L. (2007). Patterns of identification and performance among gifted students identified through performance tasks: A three-year analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 218–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207302717

VanTassel-Baska, J., Johnson, D., & Avery, L. D. (2002). Using performance tasks in the identification of economically disadvantaged and minority gifted learners: Findings from Project STAR. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(2), 110–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620204600204

Wai, J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Steiger, J. H. (2010). Accomplishment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and its relation to STEM educational dose: A 25-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 860–871. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019454

Warne, R. T. (2012). History and development of above-level testing of the gifted. Roeper Review, 34(3), 183–193. https://doi.org//10.1080/02783193.2012.686425

Worrell, F. C., & Erwin, J. O. (2011). Best practices in identifying students for gifted and talented education programs. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27(4), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2011.615817

Susan K. Johnsen, Ph.D., is Professor Emerita of Educational Psychology, Baylor University. She is editor-in-chief of Gifted Child Today and has written three tests for identifying gifted students and more than 300 articles, monographs, technical reports, chapters, and books related to gifted education. She is past president of The Association for the Gifted (TAG), Council for Exceptional Children, and past president of the Texas Association for Gifted and Talented (TAGT). She has received numerous awards for her work, including NAGC’s Ann Isaac’s Award and CEC’s Leadership Award, TAGT’s President’s Award, and TAGT’s Advocacy Award. She may be reached at Susan_Johnsen@baylor.edu.